SolarWinds · Software Engineer
Updated · 2026-09-24

SolarWinds Software Engineer
Interview Questions & Guide 2026

THE 60-SECOND BRIEF

As a Software Engineer at SolarWinds, you are at the heart of building sophisticated IT management, observability, and security solutions. This role is critical because SolarWinds products are relied upon by enterprises globally to monitor and optimize their complex infrastructure. You will contribute to products that manage everything from network performance and database health to service desk operations, ensuring that systems remain scalable, secure, and performant under heavy loads.

If the seat owns a service boundary, scope your preparation toward failure behaviour rather than topology. Retrying over an at-least-once channel produces duplicates by construction, so a retry policy is only as safe as the idempotency key underneath it.

SolarWinds candidates report 5 rounds · ≈ 4-6 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Keep money in integer minor unitsMake every write idempotent under client retriesBuild at-least-once pipelines with explicit deduplication horizons

37 min read

Browse Software Engineer questions

See the practice prompts

15Practice promptsAcross five skill areas
3With worked solutionsIncluded in the practice prompts

As a Software Engineer at SolarWinds, you are at the heart of building sophisticated IT management, observability, and security solutions. This role is critical because SolarWinds products are relied upon by enterprises globally to monitor and optimize their complex infrastructure. You will contribute to products that manage everything from network performance and database health to service desk operations, ensuring that systems remain scalable, secure, and performant under heavy loads.

The work is intellectually demanding and offers significant scope for impact. Whether you are working on backend architecture, building event-driven systems, or optimizing database queries, your code directly influences the reliability of the tools SolarWinds customers use daily. You will collaborate with cross-functional teams, including product managers and operations engineers, to solve real-world technical challenges. If you thrive in environments where you can see the tangible results of your engineering efforts on a global scale, this role provides a unique platform for growth.

01

Initial Screening

reported

The title covers product work, platform work, infrastructure, mobile and frontend, and those are different jobs with different loops behind them. A screening call is the cheapest place to find out which one the seat is, and asking reads as experienced rather than fussy. The questions that separate them: what the team is on call for, what the last three projects were, and whether any round happens inside an existing repository instead of a blank file. Then say which of that you have done and which you have not. Claiming the whole posting is the fastest way to be found out one round later.

What to demonstrate

  • Whether you can locate your experience inside one flavour of the role honestly instead of claiming the entire requirements list
  • Whether you name what you have not done, which an experienced screener reads as a level signal and can plan the loop around
  • Whether what you want next matches what the seat is: someone who wants greenfield work landing on a team that mostly operates an existing system is a hire that leaves within the year

How to prepare

  • Mark every line of the posting as done, adjacent or new, and write one sentence for each adjacent line naming the closest thing you actually built
  • Split your last two years into rough percentages across feature work, operating and debugging live systems, and design or review, so a question about scope gets numbers rather than adjectives
  • Bring three questions that discriminate between seats: what the team is paged for, how much of the work is changing existing code versus standing up something new, and what shipped in the last quarter
PracHub interview research ↗
02

Technical Assessments

reported

The same problem is scored by two different mechanisms depending on the format, and preparing for one does not cover the other. With a person watching, partial progress is visible and a hint is a correction you can absorb; silence is the expensive failure, because nobody can read a half-written function. With an automated grader there is no partial credit for what you were about to do, nobody to ask, and the worked examples in the prompt are the entire specification. Read them as a contract, down to whether an empty result should be an empty list or no output at all.

What to demonstrate

  • In a live session, whether your commentary tracks what your hands are doing, and whether a hint redirects you or gets defended against
  • In an automated one, whether you cover the cases the examples do not show, since the hidden cases are where the score moves
  • Whether you manage the clock on purpose: abandoning an approach that is not converging while there is still time to write something simpler that finishes

How to prepare

  • Have someone hand you a problem and feed you one deliberately wrong hint. Practise testing it against a concrete case instead of accepting or rejecting it on authority.
  • Do one timed run a week in a plain browser editor with autocomplete, linting and your own snippets switched off, which is closer to what these environments give you
  • For the automated format, write the harness before the solution: a main that feeds the worked examples plus an empty and a single-element case and prints expected against actual, so a wrong submission is caught by you first
PracHub interview research ↗
03

Architectural Discussions

reported

An unlabelled round is first an information problem, and the cheapest information is free. Whoever schedules it can usually tell you how long it runs, who will be in the room and what they work on, whether you will be writing code and in what environment, and whether anything is being sent beforehand. Ask in writing so the answer is on record, then prepare for the two or three formats those answers still leave open instead of betting on one. What separates a strong candidate is not guessing right; it is having an opening that works whichever one it turns out to be.

What to demonstrate

  • Whether you can start work from an ambiguous brief, since tolerating a vague scope without stalling is the same thing the job asks for
  • Whether the questions you asked beforehand were ones that change your preparation, such as duration, medium and who is joining, rather than ones whose answers you could not have acted on
  • Whether you adapt when the round turns out to be something other than what you were told, instead of spending the first ten minutes visibly recalibrating

How to prepare

  • Send one short scheduling message asking four things: how long, who is joining and what they work on, whether you will be writing code and where, and whether to prepare anything in advance. Treat a vague reply as real information, since it means the round is loosely structured and you will be shaping it yourself.
  • Write one opening that works in any of the formats still open: restate in your own words what you have been asked to do, then ask which of two directions is more useful to them. Say it aloud until it stops sounding recited.
  • Set up for the two most likely formats before the call starts, with a blank editor in the language you would choose and a shared document you can type into, so a format surprise costs you nothing in the first minutes
PracHub interview research ↗
04

Behavioral Interviews

reported

Many of these questions are about something that went wrong, and the grading sits mostly in the hours after you knew. Who found out first, whether that was you or an alert or a user, how long it took you to say it out loud, and whether the people who needed the news got it while they could still act on it. Engineers under-tell this part because it feels like confessing. The pattern it is looking for is the opposite: the quiet fix, an incident absorbed without telling anyone, after which nothing changed and the same failure is still available.

What to demonstrate

  • How the problem was found, and whether that route was one you had built or one that happened to you, since a user reporting it first means your instrumentation did not cover that failure
  • Whether time-to-detect and time-to-tell are separate numbers in your account and whether you know both, because a fast fix that nobody heard about until the retro is a different answer from a slow one that was announced immediately
  • Whether the resolution left something durable behind, a check that fires or a default that changed, rather than depending on people remembering to be careful
  • Whether you can say what the failure cost without either inflating it or waving it away

How to prepare

  • Reconstruct one incident you were part of as a timeline with clock times: first bad request, first signal, first person who knew, first message outside the team, mitigation, permanent fix. The gaps between those entries are what gets asked about
  • Look up the configuration of the signal that caught it, including its evaluation window and threshold. An alert defined on a five-minute aggregate cannot fire until the condition holds across that window, which puts a floor under time-to-detect that has nothing to do with how severe the failure was. Be able to say what that floor was and whether anyone had chosen it deliberately
  • Prepare one story where you escalated early and the severity turned out to be smaller than you thought, including what it cost the people you pulled in. Without it, every answer you give about raising alarms is unfalsifiable
PracHub interview research ↗
05

Final Panels

reported

A day like this is several different games in a row, and the expensive mistake is carrying the previous one into the next room. Coding rewards narrow precision and finishing inside a timer. Design rewards breadth, stated assumptions and naming what you are deliberately not building. Behavioural rewards specificity about people and decisions. Candidates who over-engineer a coding problem they were supposed to finish, or who start sketching class hierarchies before anyone has agreed what the system has to do, are usually still playing the last round. Between rooms, name out loud which game the next one is.

What to demonstrate

  • Whether the coding round ends with something that runs and has been traced against a degenerate input, rather than an extensible design that was never finished
  • Whether a design discussion opens by agreeing on traffic shape, read-to-write ratio and what is allowed to be stale, instead of proceeding from an architecture you arrived with
  • Whether a behavioural answer names a person, a disagreement and what you did about it, rather than describing the system the story happened inside
  • Whether the opening habits still appear late in the day: restating the problem, asking for constraints, saying the plan before typing

How to prepare

  • Book three mocks of different types back to back on one afternoon and ask each interviewer afterwards which round you answered in the wrong mode
  • Write a three-line opening script per round type — coding: restate, name the approach and its cost, then type; design: ask for scale, read-write mix and what must not break; behavioural: name the person, the stakes and the decision — and run it off a card so the switch is mechanical rather than remembered
  • Practise coding with a timer you do not extend, stopping when it stops, so the trained reflex is to finish a correct solution rather than to keep improving one
PracHub interview research ↗

PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.

01

Holding money in a floating-point type, or rounding it more than once

Binary floating point cannot represent 0.01 or 0.1 exactly, so sums drift and two code paths that should agree disagree by cents nobody can trace back. The fix is integer minor units or an exact decimal type end to end, with sub-cent rates expressed as scaled integers such as micro-units, because a per-request price genuinely is smaller than a cent. The second half of the trap is rounding position: rounding each line and then summing gives a different total from summing and rounding once, and half-up and half-even diverge systematically across many lines, so rounding must happen at one named place and every downstream reader must carry the rounded value rather than recompute it from quantity and rate.

02

Paginating a growing table with limit and offset

Two unrelated defects share the idiom. Correctness: rows inserted or deleted between page requests shift the window, so a consumer walking an export skips rows and sees others twice, which for a customer-facing sync is silent data loss rather than an error anyone notices. Cost: the database still produces and discards the skipped rows, so page N costs time proportional to N times the page size and a deep page on a large table degrades from milliseconds to seconds. Keyset pagination over a stable, unique, indexed ordering -- where (created_at, id) < ($1, $2) order by created_at desc, id desc limit $3 -- is constant-cost per page and immune to shifting, on the precondition that the cursor columns never change value for a row, which disqualifies updated_at as a cursor.

03

Abandoning working code to chase the optimal solution

Get the straightforward version correct, state its complexity, and only then optimise, keeping the working version until the faster one passes the same cases. A correct quadratic solution with a stated path to linear beats a half-written optimal one that never ran.

04

Arguing past a hint

When the interviewer asks what happens for a particular input or floats a different data structure, stop and take it seriously; it is almost always a correction rather than idle curiosity. Talking over it converts a recoverable wrong turn into a data point about how you handle review.

Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.

12 technical prompts3 include a worked solution

Refactor a provided code snippet for better performance or readability…

medium
data structures and algorithms

Refactor a provided code snippet for better performance or readability.

Approach
  1. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
  2. Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
  3. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
Follow-up
  • How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?
  • Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?

Find the nearest prime palindrome number.

medium
data structures and algorithms

Find the nearest prime palindrome number.

Approach
  1. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
  2. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
  3. Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
Follow-up
  • How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?
  • What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?

Write code to aggregate logs that have changed format.

medium
data structures and algorithms

Write code to aggregate logs that have changed format.

Approach
  1. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
  2. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
  3. Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
Follow-up
  • What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
  • How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Find the max and min in an array with O(1) time complexity.

medium
data structures and algorithms

Find the max and min in an array with O(1) time complexity.

Approach
  1. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
  2. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
  3. Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
Follow-up
  • What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
  • Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?

Parse and verify a timestamped multi-signature webhook header

easyWorked solution
parsinghmacconstant-time-comparereplay-protection

An inbound webhook carries a signature header of at most 1 KiB shaped t=<unix seconds>,v1=<64 hex chars>, with up to five v1 values during secret rotation and possibly unknown scheme keys. You hold the raw request body bytes and the currently active signing secrets. Write the parser and the verifier: accept when any active secret reproduces a signature and the timestamp is within a five-minute tolerance in either direction, reject otherwise. Single left-to-right pass over the header, no regular expression. State what is inside the MAC and why.

Approach
  1. Parse in one scan: split on ,, then on the first = only, since a value may itself contain = under a future scheme. Accept t exactly once and treat a second t as a reject rather than last-wins. Push every v1 onto a short list and ignore any other key, so a v2 can be introduced later without breaking this verifier.
  2. Say what is signed: HMAC-SHA256 over the exact byte string <t>.<raw body bytes>, yielding 32 bytes or 64 hex characters. The timestamp sits inside the MAC because otherwise an attacker replays yesterday's body with its still-valid signature and only has to edit the header timestamp.
  3. Hash the bytes as received. Verifying against a re-serialised JSON body is the usual defect: key order, whitespace and number formatting all change the bytes while the parsed objects compare equal, so signatures fail for honest senders and the popular 'fix' is to stop checking.
  4. Compare in constant time over fixed-length digests. Decode the hex to 32 bytes, accumulate acc |= a[i] ^ b[i] across the whole length, and test acc == 0 at the end. Evaluate every candidate without an early exit; at five candidates that is five HMACs over the body, linear in body size and negligible beside the network.
  5. Apply the tolerance as a two-sided bound, rejecting when |now - t| > 300 seconds. A sender whose clock runs ahead of yours is an ordinary case, and an unbounded future timestamp is a free replay window.
  6. Complexity: O(L) over the header producing k candidates, plus k HMACs at O(|body|) each. Space is O(k) beyond the body itself. Do the cheap rejections, including the tolerance check, before any cryptography runs.
Worked solution 15 min
  1. Write the grammar on one line before coding: header := field (',' field)*, field := key '=' value, split on the first = only.
  2. Implement the parser to return {t: int, v1: [hex, ...]}, rejecting a missing t, a duplicate t, any v1 that is not 64 hex characters, and a header over 1 KiB, all before any cryptography runs.
  3. Implement the verifier: for each active secret compute HMAC-SHA256(secret, f'{t}.'.encode() + raw_body), compare it in constant time against each parsed v1, and OR the results with no early exit.
  4. Test with a valid signature; the same body with t moved 400 seconds into the past; the same body with t 400 seconds into the future; a header carrying an unknown v2= alongside a valid v1; and a body re-serialised with different JSON key order.
EXPECTED RESULTThe valid case accepts. Both out-of-tolerance cases reject, including the future one. The unknown `v2` field is ignored and the `v1` still verifies. The re-serialised body fails, which is correct and is exactly why the raw bytes must be retained.
Follow-up
  • The body is 40 MB. What changes about where you verify, and what can you do before the whole body has arrived?
  • A customer reports that signatures fail for exactly the requests whose body contains a non-ASCII character. What is your first hypothesis?
  • How do you rotate the signing secret with no failed deliveries, and how long do both secrets stay live?

Four days sample coding, design, fundamentals and the practical rounds at deliberately shallow depth, which is enough to surface the topics you did not know were in scope. That map, rather than a guess made on day one, decides where the last three days go.

Small steps. Visible outcomes.0 / 7 completed
ONE WEEK · YOUR PACE

Prepare, practise & reflect

One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.

0 / 7 done
01Coding, one pass at shallow depth
  • Solve one problem from each of six families, an array with two pointers, hash counting, binary search, a tree traversal, a graph traversal and one dynamic program, under a hard twenty-minute cap with no extensions, marking each finished, late, or stalled.
  • For every stall, write the exact move you could not make rather than the subject, so the note reads could not turn the recurrence into a loop rather than bad at dynamic programming.
  • Fix nothing today. The value of the pass is the unfixed record.

Deliverable: Six timed attempts marked finished, late or stalled, each stall carrying a named blocking move.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗
02Design, one pass at shallow depth
  • Spend twenty minutes each on three different shapes, a read-heavy feed, a write-heavy ingest path, and something needing a transaction across two entities, stopping each at requirements, interface and data model.
  • After each, write the first question you could not answer, which is usually a number you could not estimate or a failure mode you had no vocabulary for.
  • Mark which of the three you would be most relieved not to be asked, and treat that as data rather than as a preference.

Deliverable: Three shallow designs, each with the first unanswerable question written at the bottom.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
03Fundamentals and the practical rounds
  • Answer eight short questions in writing at four minutes each, covering the material that fills the gaps between the big rounds: what happens between a URL and a rendered page, what an index costs on write, when a process is preferable to a thread, and what conditions a deadlock requires.
  • Do one thirty-minute practical task of the kind a take-home compresses: read an unfamiliar two-hundred-line file and write what it does, what you would change, and the one thing you remain unsure of.
  • Score every answer fluent, correct but slow, or absent, and keep the absent ones visible.

Deliverable: Eight scored short answers and one written reading of unfamiliar code.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
04The rounds that are about you, and the map
  • Deliver three behavioural answers aloud against a timer, a conflict, a failure you owned, and a decision made without enough information, marking any that ran past three minutes or contained no number.
  • Assemble the map: every marked item from days one to three on a single page, sorted by how likely it is to appear in your loop rather than by how uncomfortable it felt.
  • Choose exactly two areas for the remaining three days and write down what you are deliberately abandoning.

Deliverable: A one-page scored map of the whole surface area with two areas chosen and the rest explicitly abandoned.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗
05First chosen area, to the depth you skipped
  • Work the higher-ranked area in four focused blocks, choosing items one level above where you stalled rather than repeating what already works.
  • After each block write the rule you extracted in one sentence with its precondition attached, since a rule carrying no precondition is exactly what fails under a variation.
  • Re-attempt the day-one or day-two item that exposed this area and compare against the original timing.

Deliverable: Four worked blocks, a timed re-attempt against the original, and three one-sentence rules with preconditions.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
06Second chosen area, where the gap is coverage rather than speed
  • Treat the second area differently from the first. Day five drilled something you could already half-do; this one is usually a topic you had simply never met, so build one worked reference example end to end and keep it, rather than attempting six problems badly.
  • Write down the vocabulary you were missing on day two or three, five terms at most, each with the one sentence that makes it usable in an answer rather than the textbook definition.
  • Redo the shallow attempt that exposed this area and note whether you now fail later in the problem, because moving the failure point is the realistic gain from a single day and is worth more than a score that did not change.

Deliverable: One worked reference example for the newly covered area, a five-term vocabulary list, and a note on where the failure point moved.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
07Reassemble the loop
  • Sit two rounds back to back with no gap, ordering them so the area you chose second comes last, because the map was built from rested, isolated attempts and the loop will reach your weaker area when you are already spent.
  • Write where the second round suffered from the first, which is normally the point at which structure collapses into narration.
  • Reduce the week to one page holding only the rules you can state without reading them.

Deliverable: Mock notes on cross-round carryover plus a one-page card of rules you can recite from memory.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗

Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.

Conflict answers where you were right and everyone came round are the weakest ones. Stronger: the evidence you went and collected, what would have changed your mind, and what you did in the weeks after the call went against you. Implementing a design you argued against, properly, is a specific and checkable behaviour.

How do you handle a situation where you disagree with a technical deci…

medium
behavioural and engineering judgement

How do you handle a situation where you disagree with a technical decision made by your manager?

Approach
  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
  3. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Follow-up
  • What did you decide not to do, and why?
  • What would you do differently if you ran that again?

If hired, what is something we might dislike about your work style in …

medium
behavioural and engineering judgement

If hired, what is something we might dislike about your work style in six months?

Approach
  1. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
  2. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  3. Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Follow-up
  • How did you know your change caused the improvement?
  • What would you do differently if you ran that again?

Ship metered billing with a named deduplication horizon

medium
technical debtdeduplicationdeadline pressuredetectors

Metered billing must be on in three weeks. usage_event is partitioned daily, so its unique index must include the partition key and deduplicates only within a day: a producer retry that crosses midnight, or a replay run a week later, gets through. A cross-partition dedup store is two weeks you do not have. Describe shipping with debt you named in advance: what you shipped, what you wrote down, the detector you added, the trigger and date for paying it off, and what you would have refused to ship under the same pressure.

Approach
  1. Show you can separate the two kinds of debt, because that distinction is what the question actually probes. Debt that costs engineering time later is shippable on a deadline. Debt that silently corrupts a number a customer gets charged for is not shippable unless the corruption is detectable, and detectability is the whole negotiation.
  2. Make the exposure narrow and measured rather than gestural. The hole is duplicates whose occurrences straddle a UTC day boundary, plus any replay older than partition retention. Measure it before arguing about it: how often an idempotency_key recurs at all, and the distribution of the gap between first and last occurrence. If the ninety-ninth percentile of that gap is four minutes, the residual risk is a small band around midnight and you can say so numerically.
  3. Add the detector before the feature, not after. A nightly job counting keys that appear in more than one partition is one grouped scan over recent partitions, and it converts a silent overcount into a page. State what it costs to run and what it fires on.
  4. Buy the cheap half of the real fix immediately: extend partition retention so the dedup horizon exceeds the producer's maximum retry window plus the longest replay you intend to support. That reframes retention as a correctness parameter rather than a storage cost, which is the sentence you need on record before someone optimises the bill.
  5. Make repayment mechanical instead of aspirational: a dated entry with a named owner, plus a threshold that pulls the date forward — first detector hit above N events, or first customer dispute. Debt with a trigger gets paid; debt with only a date does not.
  6. Answer the second half honestly by naming what you would refuse under identical pressure: the sealing path, because a sealed row is frozen and a wrong number there stops being a bug and becomes an adjustment line, a dispute and an audit question.
Follow-up
  • The detector fires on forty duplicate events for one tenant, and two of their invoices have already sealed. What happens next?
  • Whom did you tell that the billing numbers had a known hole, and in what words?
  • Finance asks you to cut storage by shortening partition retention. What do you say, and to whom?
  • 01

    How do you handle a situation where you disagree with a technical decision made by your manager?

  • 02

    If hired, what is something we might dislike about your work style in six months?

  • 03

    Metered billing must be on in three weeks. usage_event is partitioned daily, so its unique index must include the partition key and deduplicates only within a day: a producer retry that crosses midnight, or a replay run a week later, gets through. A cross-partition dedup store is two weeks you do not have. Describe shipping with debt you named in advance: what you shipped, what you wrote down, the detector you added, the trigger and date for paying it off, and what you would have refused to ship under the same pressure.

PracHub interview preparation framework ↗
Is this an official SolarWinds interview guide?

No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Software Engineer role at SolarWinds. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process SolarWinds has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.

PracHub interview research ↗
Is the interview process difficult?

The evaluation is meant to be fair. It is rigorous because it is meant to confirm you will be successful in the role, but the interviewers are professionals who want you to succeed.

PracHub interview research ↗
How much time should I spend preparing?

Preparation time varies, but plan to review your past project architectures and practice coding problems for at least 1–2 weeks before your technical rounds.

PracHub interview research ↗
What differentiates successful candidates?

Successful candidates don't just provide "the answer"; they explain their reasoning, ask clarifying questions, and show they can handle feedback during the interview.

PracHub interview research ↗
Will I be interviewed by the team I am joining?

Whenever possible, SolarWinds aims to have you meet the team members you will work with daily, as this provides the best experience for both you and the team.

PracHub interview research ↗
Sources & methodology 3 sources ↗

No official company page is cited. Rounds and questions come from candidate reports and PracHub editorial material; each source shows the date it was read.